About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
ronald reagan not making the case for immigration, but for amnesty, using that word. republicans are pro-immigration but they have been afraid of the past six years of the anti- immigration law me. immigration lobby. now i think this election cycle has dramatically changed that. i can at least number half a dozen radio and tv talk shows that have already said, you know what, my position has evolved, now time for immigration reform. now -- i am for immigration reform. that is good, because it will give cover for republicans who have avoided this issue and want to deal with this issue to actually do it. immigration and being for immigration reform is the conservative position. restrictionism part of the nationalist protectionist paradigm t. if we are the party of the family and a free-market, the gop is, we should not in any way have a restrictionist position. if we are for the family, i don't see why we should be calling for supporting hundreds of thousands of families and in this country -- operating hundreds of thousands of families in this country. many have been here for decades. why
should be granted a dozen to 14 years for raising my family. >> you talked about the diversity. >> ronald reagan said, i will not hold your youth and inexperience against you. >> i will pass that onto luke. >> you are talking about the diversity about the democratic caucus in which you lead in the house. it is a new thing at least that there is not a straight, white male majority in this caucus. and i wonder, you know, the republican party, won a larger majority of the white vote which they were bragging about today in terms of what went right for them in this election which they lost. they lost all minority groups by large margins. when you look at your group and you have that momentous change, what do you say to people who look at that change and think i'm not sure i'm happy about the fact that there is a -- in the democratic caucus? >> i haven't met anybody like that yet. >> but let's say i would say everybody is talking about how we can appeal to these people to vote for us and we are saying no, we want to go beyond that. we want them to represent us. so it is not about we need your v
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
's going on at and the party splitting again. they always quote ronald reagan, but he said not to speak ill of another republican. we keep forgetting that. we're not using a new technology. romney, i think there was prejudice in the party against his mormonism. i think a lot of evangelists stood back as they did when john mccain ran. we were 3 million votes down. i would like to hear what the other republicans have to say about that. i think bobby jindal is going down the wrong route in jumping on romney now. we had fractional primaries and that took a lot of steam out of romney and set us up for the democratic assaults. host: in georgia now, charles. caller: calling from cleveland, georgia. i believe the republican party pass to get back to the constitution. these undeclared wars have to stop. we threw away the ron paul supporters. we needed them to defeat obama. romney did not mention the constitution many times -excuse- me, i'm nervous. we have to go back to the constitution. if the republicans don't go by the constitution, they are no better than the democrats. host: plenty more time fo
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
to make a comment about this benghazi thing. republicans have made such a big deal out of it. ronald reagan sent over 200 marines to their death and there was no public outrage. where is the republican outrage? only because of obama do we get this kind of reaction. thank you. host: edward, from miami, florida, this morning. another editorial, from being west, former infantryman. host: that is from the former assistant secretary of defense. we're taking your calls on this issue. b.j., good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, who is joe kelly? why would brought well be sending her threatening e-mails? -- broadwell be sending her a threat in e-mails? host: do you think the senate needs to hold a hearing on this? caller: absolutely. i look forward to his testimony under oath this time, rather than giving the cock and bull story from before. it is all because of the video tape. now he cannot be blackmailed by anyone. host: joe kelly is described as a 37-year-old social liaison at the air force base in tampa. host: did he have an affair with her? is that when he was so upset? --
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)